ARTICLES

The Late Pleistocene Cultures of South America

TOM D. DILLEHAY
All theseviews can beaccomodated
by emphasizing different archeologi-
cal records in different geographical
areas. That is, prior to the outset of
deglaciation between 15,000 and
13,000yearsago, therst SouthAmeri-
cans may have been conned to pro-
ductive, open terrain or patchy forests
in lowland environments where they
may have moved quickly and adapted
readily. Movement into the high alti-
tudes of theCentral Andes and thehigh
latitudes of southern Patagoniamaynot
have occurred until 11,000 to 10,000
years ago, after deglaciation. Whatever
theentrydatemaybe, latePleistocene
cultural developments in South
America show a steady shift away
frombroaduniformityandtowardthe
establishment of distinct regional tra-
ditions.
6,8,911,13,17
I t is clear that sev-
eral regionsweremovingtowarddiffer-
ent social and economic patterns by
terminal Pleistocene times: Most
groups moved rapidly from simple to
complex proto-Archaic systems. This
isindicatedbywidelydiversetechnolo-
gies, loose territoriality, generalized
foragingeconomies, anddemographic
change. Some groups ultimately ma-
nipulated plants and animals in favor-
able environments and developed the
beginnings of social differentia-
tion.
10,11,17
Between 11,000 and 10,000 years
ago, South America also witnessed
many of the changes seen as being
typical of the Pleistocene period in
other parts of the world.
5,911
These
changes include the use of coastal
resourcesandrelateddevelopmentsin
marinetechnology, demographic con-
centration in major river basins, and
the practice of modifying plant and
animal distributions. Others occur
later, between 10,000 and 9,000 years
ago, and include most of the changes
commonly regarded as typifyingearly
Archaic (or Neolithic) economies: I n-
creases in site density and abandon-
ment, increased useof high-cost plant
foods, plant manipulation, intensive
exploitation of coastal resources,
greater technological diversication,
and the appearance of ritual prac-
tices.
6,9,11,18,19
From a global perspec-
tive, what makes South Americainter-
esting is that cultural complexity
developedearly, possiblywithin onlya
few millenia after theinitial arrival of
humans. Beingthelast continent occu-
pied byhumans but oneof theearliest
where domestication occurred, South
America offers an important study of
rapid cultural change and regional
adaptation. This change accelerated
quickly between 11,000 and 10,000
years ago, as indicated by the in-
creased number of diagnostic tool
types, site types, and exploited re-
sourcesassociatedwiththemovement
of humansintotheinterior river corri-
dors and coastal fringes of the conti-
nent. The triggering mechanisms of
these changes are not well under-
stood, but may be related to climatic
shifts, internal developments within
regional populations, the imitation of
neighbors, the arrival of new people
on the scene, and the procurement of
food and other resources in highly
productive environments, as well as
Important to an understanding of the rst peopling of any continent is an
understanding of human dispersion and adaptation and their archeological signa-
tures. Until recently, the earliest archeological record of South America was viewed
uncritically as a uniform and unilinear development involving the intrusion of North
American people who brought a founding cultural heritage, the uted Clovis stone
tool technology, and a big-game hunting tradition to the southern hemisphere
between 11,000 and 10,000 years ago.
13
Biases in the history of research and the
agendas pursued in the archeology of the rst Americans have played a major part
in forming this perspective.
46
Despite enthusiastic acceptance of the Clovis model by a vast majority of
archeologists, several SouthAmerican specialists have rejected it.
611
They contend
that the presence of archeological sites in Tierra del Fuego and other regions by at
least 11,000 to 10,500 years ago was simply insufficient time for even the fastest
migration of North Americans to reach within only a few hundred years. Despite this
concern, and despite the discovery of several pre-Clovis sites in SouthAmerica,
6,1012
some specialists
2,3
keep the Clovis model alive. Proponents of the model claim that
the pre-Clovis sites are unreliable due to questionable radiocarbon dates, artifacts,
and stratigraphy. Solid evidence at the Monte Verde site in Chile
1416
and other
localities
6,8,1012
now indicates that South America was discovered by humans at
least 12,500 years ago. How much earlier than 12,500 years ago is still a matter of
conjecture.
6,10,12,15
Some proponents prefer a long chronology of 20,000 to 45,000
years ago,
8
while others advocate a short chronology of 15,000 to 20,000 years
ago
1012
or only 11,000 years ago.
13
Tom D. Dillehay is Professor of Anthropol-
ogy at the University of Kentucky, Lexing-
ton, Kentucky. He combines archeological
and ethnological factors in his research.
His main interest is in South America, and
he has done investigations in North
America.
Key words: Pleistocene culture; extinction of
animals; early technologies; migration
206 Evolutionary Anthropology
the growing cultural experience and
constantly changing lifestyleof Homo
sapiens sapiens resulting from having
traversed the entire span of the West-
ern Hemisphere.
Early cultural diversity may most
readily be traced in the archeological
recordbythestudyof stone-tool typol-
ogy. But it is also important, wherever
possible, to examinetheinternal char-
acteristics of sites and local-level sub-
sistence practices. The current record
is geographically uneven due to sam-
plingbias, with most attention having
beengiventothecentral Andes, south-
ern Argentina, southern Chile, and
central Brazil (Fig. 1). As a result,
some cultural differences may appear
greater nowthan they will when more
archeological information has come
to hand. Nonetheless, where the rec-
ord is best understood, it shows obvi-
ous and consistent cultural differ-
ences in stone tool technologies and
subsistencepracticesbetweenonemil-
lenium and the next and between
North America and South America.
Because the South American record
historically has been perceived as a
cultural outgrowth or clone of early
North American culture,
13
I will dis-
cuss the major differences between
the two continents. I also will stress
thebroad technological and economic
developments in South America. The
general course of these developments
has been outlined in recent reviews by
Bryan,
8
Dillehay and colleagues,
11
Ar-
dila and Politis,
10
and Lynch,
3,17
and
will be summarized briey here. Be-
cause the archeological evidence of a
human entry to South America before
about 15,000 years ago is weak and
onlypresumedat thistime, I will focus
on the paleoclimatic and archeologi-
cal evidence from the period between
approximately13,000and10,000years
ago. Given thepresenceof humans in
South Americaat least afewcenturies
before12,000 years ago, wemust pre-
sume an entry date at least 15,000 to
14,000yearsago.
APPLES AND ORANGES: NORTH
AMERICA AND SOUTH AMERICA
Todate, themost persistent explana-
tory models of the peopling of both
North and South America are those
that attribute the growth, spread, and
change of the earliest cultures to the
movement of human populations and
broad-scale climatic change. I am re-
ferring to studies that envision the
long-distance movements and settle-
ments of populations
2024
and thelater
diffusion of ideas and circulation of
items across extant populations. Most
models have it that Clovis and later
Paleoindian big-game hunters, after
successfullypassingthrough thehigh-
latitude glaciers or along the Pacic
coastline of North America, adapted
to a plentiful, dense, but seasonally
and geographically unpredictable re-
source base, the gregarious mega-
faunaof thelatePleistocene.
21,22
Hunt-
ing these large animals probably
required high mobility in some areas,
opportunistic camping, and periodic
movement over long distances. These
patterns are reected in the artifact
assemblages at North American sites,
which often are comprised of exotic
raw materials carried from long dis-
tances.
23,24
The uniformity of stone
tool types over large areas like the
eastern two-thirdsof North Americais
important. I t suggestsexpansive, over-
lapping territories and, along with ex-
otic raw material patterns, and gener-
ally standardized information and
material culture.
ThelatePleistoceneperiod of South
America stands in contrast to that in
North America.
6,811,13
The rst differ-
ence is the absence of a continent-
wide stone tool style like Clovis and
the long-distance movement of exotic
raw lithic material. Another distinc-
tion is that the glacial effect in South
America was conned to patchy high-
altitude or high-latitude areas of the
Andes and had less effect on human
populations after 13,000 years ago,
when deglaciation had already oc-
curred in most regions. I n North
America, theextensiveicesheetscover-
ing high latitudes limited the initial
movement of people. On the other
hand, in lower Central America and
the eastern and western anks and
lowlands of the Andes, as well as the
southeasternUnitedStates, lessglacia-
tion provided an environment of ma-
ture forests and savanna grasslands.
This mixed forest environment, espe-
cially in parts of Colombia, the land-
bridge gateway into South America,
and in eastern Brazil, possibly pro-
vided a more predictable, dense, and
uniform resource structure that of-
feredawidevarietyof economicoppor-
tunities. Current archeological evi-
dence suggests that these areas
probably witnessed the early rise of
generalized foraging economies, a
greater reliance on local lithic raw
materials, andmoremicroregional dif-
ferentiation of material culture be-
tween 11,000 and 10,000 years ago.
These patterns probably reect de-
creased movement, increased popula-
tion density, and the appearance of
loose territoriality, if not colonization
(settlingintoaparticular habitat) near
the outset of human entry into some
areas. Within this scheme, the classic
Paleoindianstrategyof specializedbig-
gamehuntingwassimplyoneof many
different subsistence practices. More
common are sites reecting a diet
typical of the early Archaic period.
The nds at Monte Verde in southern
Chile,
6
several highland cave sites in
the central Andes,
10,11,18,19,25,26
the
GrandeAbrigo deSantana do Riacho,
27
Lapa do Boquete,
28
Lapa dos Bichos,
29
and other sites
13,29,30
in central Brazil
have yielded seeds and other plant
foods along with game animals, some
extinct. Also entering into the equa-
tion is plant manipulation, which
might have begun in some areas by
11,000yearsago, giventhepresenceof
domesticates possibly as early as
10,000to 8,000yearsago.
25,3133
Another difference between North
and South America is in projectile
point developments, unifacial stone
tools, andbolastones, whicharemodi-
ed spheres probably used as sling
. . . where the record is
best understood, it shows
obvious and consistent
cultural differences in
stone tool technologies
and subsistence
practices between one
millenium and the next
and between North
America and South
America.
ARTICLES Evolutionary Anthropology 207
stones or hand missles. I f we know
anything about early projectile point
typesinNorthAmerica, it isthat stylis-
tic and technological continuity can
generally betraced on a regional level
at the beginning of the Paleoindian
period, fromonetypeto another (e.g.,
Clovis, Folsom, Plainview, Dalton,
Cumberland). Elongated projectile
points with utes and stemmed points
often appear in stratigraphic se-
quence.
5,12,22
The most widely pub-
lished cultural trait linking North and
SouthAmericaistheutedpoint tradi-
tion and there is considerable debate
about its origin. Some archeologists
8
believe that the ute was invented in
South America and diffused to the
north. Others see the ute as nothing
morethanalongitudinal thinningflake
removed byadifferent techniquethan
that used to make the classic channel
akes of Clovis and Folsom.
11,34
I n
South America, on the other hand,
there are few, if any, linking traits to
indicate technological evolution, even
wherediagnostic stonetools (primari-
ly projectile points) are in strati-
graphic order. When thesetools occur
inthearcheological record, theygener-
ally areregionalized types and appear
withlowfrequency. Widespreadunifa-
cial stone tool assemblages such as
those at Tequendama and Tibito in
Colombia, MonteVerde, andI taparica
Phase sites in eastern Brazil (Fig. 1)
appear bythe11thand12thmillennia.
This unifacial industry makes South
America inherently different from the
Northern Hemisphere. I t should be
noted that the bifacial and unifacial
industries in South America are not
considered to becompeting or oppos-
ing technologies but complementary
ones, most likely derived from the
sametechnological source. Depending
on regional environmental and cul-
tural circumstances, theymayco-exist
in different frequencies at sites or be
entirely absent in some areas during
some periods. Another distinguishing
trait is the bola stone, which appears
in South America about 12,500 years
ago at Monte Verde and between
11,500 years ago at others sites in
eastern Brazil andthesouthern half of
thecontinent. Taken together, thedis-
tribution of points, unifaces, and bola
stones suggests complicated mosaics
of technological and subsistenceprac-
tices in which bifacial or unifacial
types occur regionally and indepen-
dently, and are often intermixed with
hybridlocal types(Fig. 2).
8,9,11,13,17
AsI
indicated earlier, these diverse types
seem to represent greater time depth
andrapidinsitucultural change, prob-
ably resultingfromrapid colonization
after initial entry, as well as highly
effectivelocal adaptations.
The almost ubiquitous unifacial
technologies in South America were
trulyinnovative. Theyhavebeendocu-
mented in many different environ-
ments and at many sites throughout
the continent. This industry involved
far moreeconomical useof rawmate-
Figure 1. Map showing major early archeological sites in South America: 1. Taima-Taima; 2. Rio
Pedregal, Cucuruchu; 3. El Abra, Tequendama, Tibito; 4. Popayan; 5. El Inga; 6. Las Vegas; 7.
Siches, Amotope, Talara; 8. Paijan; 9. Guitarrero Cave; 10. Lauricocha; 11. Telarmachay,
Pachamachay, Uchumachay, Panalauca; 12. Pikimachay; 13. Ring Site, Quebrada Las Con-
chas and Quebrada Jaguay; 14. Intihuasi Cave; 15. Gruta del Indio; 16. Agua de la Cueva; 17.
Inca Cueva IV; 18. Huachichoana III; 19. Quebrada Seca; 20. Toca do Sitio do Meio, Toca do
Boqueirao da Pedra Furada; 21. various site in Minas Gerais state; 22. Lapa Vermelha IV; 23.
various Goias sites; 24. Itaborai sites; 25. Alice Boer; 26. Catalaense and Tangurupa complexes;
27. Cerro la China, Cerro El Sombrero, La Moderna, Arroyo Seco 2; 28. Los Toldos; 29. Fells Cave,
Palli Aike, Cerro Sota; 30. Mylodon Cave, Cueva del Medio; 31. Tres Arroyos; 32, 33. various sites
in northern Chile; 34. Quereo; 35. Tagua-Tagua; 36. Monte Verde; 37. El Ceibo; 38. Chobshi
Cave; 39. Cubilan; 40. Asana; 41. Ubicui and Uruguai Phase sites. (Modied from Dillehay
6
)
208 Evolutionary Anthropology ARTICLES
rial and theability to repair or modify
tools without totally replacing them.
This technology is best and conven-
tionally seen as a development from
pebble tool industries in which tech-
niques for making all-purpose tools
were frequently practiced. Examples
of this industry are the Amotope,
Siches, Honda, and Nanchoc tradi-
tions on thenorth coast of Peru,
11
the
I taparica and Paranaiba industries in
central Brazil,
29,35
and the Tequenda-
mienseand Abrienseindustries in Co-
lombia.
10,11
I t has been argued that
several of these industries were used
for plant processing and woodwork-
ing, and that thedevelopment of these
industries was a response to a wetter
climate and the resulting spread of
vegetation. Although plausible, that
argument rests on slender founda-
tions, for wehavelittledirect evidence
about the uses to which these indi-
vidual artifacts were put.
6
Further-
more, archeologists are still far from
being able to explain why the parallel
developments of bifacial and unifacial
technologies took place in South
America. Simplediffusionfromacom-
mon source, particularly onein North
America, is unlikely. The co-existence
of early unifacial and bifacial technolo-
gies in South America is moreremines-
centof latePleistoceneadaptivetechnolo-
giesinAustraliaandpartsof Asiathanof
NorthAmerica.
I n summary, there is a sufficient
amount of South American data to
warrant rejectionof thereceivedNorth
American intrusive-Clovis culture
model and even thenotion of a homo-
geneous dispersing population. Al-
though the Clovis model possibly ac-
counts for the presence of one trait,
uting, in some areas of South
America, it fails to account fully for
thediversity of contemporaneous ma-
terial cultures and economies that ex-
isted by 11,000 years ago. To better
understand the context of this diver-
sity, weneed to viewthearcheological
evidencefromtheperspectiveof differ-
ent regional populations culturally
adaptingto different environments.
REGIONAL DIVERSITY
IN SOUTH AMERICA
Aprimarycauseof cultural diversity
must be sought in the environmental
transitions at the end of the Pleis-
tocene period. That is not to say that
simple environmental determinism
and isolationism directed human cul-
tural andbiological diversity; it issim-
plytoassert that changingclimateand
resource structures must have inu-
enced patterns of human distribution
and subsistence practices across the
continent. A wide range of studies
have been carried out to reconstruct
thelatePleistoceneenvironments, with
varying degrees of success, accuracy,
and geographical and temporal cover-
age. I n general, at about 30,000 years
ago, the climate was warmer and
moister than it is today.
3639
Between
28,000 and 18,000 years ago, the cli-
mate was drier and cooler.
3640
From
18,000to14,000yearsago, it wasdrier
and colder.
36,38,4143
Closer to the pri-
mary time period under study here,
there is evidence of a signicant tem-
perature rise between 15,000 and
14,000 years ago.
36,38,4143
As a result,
continental ice sheets started melting
and the sea level began to rise. I n
southern South America, theeffectsof
this rise, which occurred between
13,000 and 10,000 years ago, were
particularly dramatic: The Atlantic
shelf and many areas in present-day
Tierra del Fuego wereooded as were
any sites dating to this period or ear-
lier. After 12,000yearsago, therewasa
moister andcooler climateuntil 11,000
to10,000, whenit becamewarmer and
drier again. The early Holocene re-
ects areturn to acool, moist climate.
Coastlines, deltasandwetlands, and
major rivers leading into the interior
were undoubtedly important to the
initial dispersion of humans and their
exploitation of predictable resources.
I f humans rst traveled along the Pa-
cic
44
or Atlanticcoastlines, theycould
have moved quickly into the southern
portionsof thecontinent, occasionally
migrating laterally into the interior.
Various wetland habitats in deltas and
along major coastal rivers may have
servedasprimaryareasof initial adap-
tation and movement into the inte-
rior.
6,45
Whether they initially moved
along the coasts or immediately into
higher river valleys (e.g., Magdalena)
of theAndeanmountainsandadjacent
plains of Colombia between 15,000
and 12,000 years ago, any human
populationwasprobablythinlyspread,
with the majority living closer to ma-
jor waterways. After 13,000 years ago,
when more arid conditions existed, it
is likely that human settlement was
focused in wetland habitats and espe-
cially the major river valleys. The fur-
ther development of rivers in terminal
Pleistocene times, when they were
morestabilizedafter deglaciation, was
probably central to the early cultural
historyof SouthAmerica, especiallyin
the Amazon Basin and surrounding
regions, because they favored human
populationconcentration, growth, and
contact, and reduced foraging ranges.
Extensive wetland and lake systems
were also present in many areas, but
probably not to thedegreeseen in the
earlyHolocene.
Thereis a rash of early sites all over
thecontinent that areassociated with
wetland, riverine, andother enviroments.
Theseinclude, for example, MonteVerde,
Taima-Taima, Tequendama, Tbito
(Fig. 3), Pedra Furada I I , I taparica
Phasesites, GrandeAbrigodeSantana
do Riacho, Monte Alegre, Papa do
Boquete, and Lapa dos Bichos. As a
whole, these sites present a highly
heterogenousarcheological recordthat
negatesmanyof our previousassump-
tionsabout entrydates, humandisper-
sion, andearlytechnologiesandecono-
mies. Although someof thesesites are
beset with problems such as dubious
human artifacts, questionable radio-
carbon dates, or unreliable geological
contexts,
36
several cannot be dis-
missed. Most questionable are the
deeper layers of theMonteVerdeI site
in Chile
3,6
andof thePedraFuradasite
in Brazil,
46,47
where modied stones
Although the Clovis
model possibly accounts
for the presence of one
trait, uting, in some
areas of South America,
it fails to account fully for
the diversity of
contemporaneous
material cultures and
economies that existed
by 11,000 years ago.
ARTICLES Evolutionary Anthropology 209
and features hint at a possiblehuman
presenceearlier than20,000yearsago.
MuchmorereliableistheMonteVerde
I I site, which has been securely dated
to about 12,500years ago. Therearea
handful of other sites that contain
evidenceof reliablecultural materials
from before 11,000 years ago. These
areTaima-Taima in Venezuela
48
and a
few caves and rockshelters in Bra-
zil
2730,35,49,50
and Tierra del Fuego.
51
There also are the various unifacial
and bifacial lithic complexes in the
forested areas of Colombia, Venezu-
ela, Brazil, and Chile. These include
the Tequendamiense and Abriense
complexes of Colombia
10
and the
I taparica Phase of Brazil
35
for the pe-
riod from 11,800 to 10,500 years ago.
I n addition, there are the stemmed
shtail points of various areas, the
Paijan points of Ecuador and Peru,
and a myriad of projectile point types
from the central Andean high-
lands,
10,11,25,26
all of which appeared
between 11,000 and 10,000 years ago.
Other less known or less diagnostic
unifacial andbifacial assemblagesdat-
ingbetweenapproximately11,500and
10,000yearsago havealso been recog-
nized throughout the continent. Al-
thoughthediscontinuitesandcontinu-
ities between many of these sites and
their tool technologies are presently
vague on a continental level, they are
important, reecting different pat-
terns of subsistence in different envi-
ronments, including big-game hunt-
ingand generalized foraging, between
at least 12,500and 10,000yearsago.
Oneexampleof ageneralized forag-
inglife-wayisseen at thesiteof Monte
Verde I I ,
6
dated to about 12,500 years
ago and located on a tributary of a
major river midway between the Pa-
cic coast and the Andean highlands
of southern Chile (Figs. 4 and 5). The
site contains a wide array of well-
preserved perishable materials such
as wood, plant, and bone and unifa-
cial, bifacial, and bola stonetechnolo-
gies. I ncluded in the recovered mate-
rial inventory are the wood and hide
remains of a long tent-like structure
and a nearby isolated hut. I ndividual
livingspacesinsidethetent wereasso-
ciated with small clay-lined repits,
foodstains, plant remains, stonetools,
andother debris. Outsidethetent were
twolargecookingpits, several wooden
mortars and grinding stones, numer-
ous modied stones and pieces of
wood, and other miscellaneous fea-
tures indicative of multiple domestic
tasks. Recovered from inside the iso-
lated hut were the remains of plants
that possibly were medicinal. Scat-
tered around the outside of the hut
were wooden artifacts, stone tools,
and bones of seven mastodons, sug-
gesting the area may have been used
to process animal hides and meat,
manufacturetools, and, perhaps, tend
the sick. The wide range of organic
and inorganic remains in thesitewere
brought fromseveral distant highland
and coastal habitats within the river
basin, indicating maximum exploita-
tion of resourcesandahighlyeffective
Figure 2. Sample of the variety of bifacial and unifacial stone tools typical of Late Pleistocene
sites in South America: A. El Jobo projectile point from Venezuela; B. Monte Verde projectile
point from Chile; C. unifacial tools from Monte Verde; D,E. edge-trimmed akes of the
Tequendamiense and Abriense complexes in highland Colombia; FI. Various unifacial stone
tools from Itaparica sites in Brazil; J,K. shtail projectile points from Fells Cave in southern Chile;
L. Paijan projectile point from coastal Peru; MQ. various stemmed and unstemmed projectile
points from cave and rockshelter sites in highland Peru.
If humans rst traveled
along the Pacic or
Atlantic coastlines, they
could have moved
quickly into the southern
portions of the continent,
occasionally migrating
laterally into the interior.
210 Evolutionary Anthropology ARTICLES
foraging economy, especially in the
wetlands. The excellent preservation
of organic material at Monte Verde
also reminds us of what may bemiss-
ing in poorly preserved sites and how
narrow our interpretations of thepast
may be when they are based almost
exclusively on patterns observed in
stone tool and, occasionally, bone as-
semblages.
Unlike the people at Monte Verde,
who were probably territorial and re-
sided in theriver basin for most of the
year, some later groups were highly
mobile, usinga classic bifacial projec-
tile point technology in various open
environmentscharacterizedbyextinct
big-game animals such as mastodon
and giant ground sloths. The primary
examples are populations associated
with El J obo points (Venezuela), sh-
tail or Magallanespoints(variousparts
of thecontinent, but mainlythesouth-
ern half), and Paijan points (Peru and
Ecuador) at sites in grasslands, sa-
vanna plains, and patchy for-
ests.
8,11,13,25,26,5256
Although not well-
documented, the diversity of faunal
and, when preserved, oral resources
at these sites seems to be generally
low, comprising mainly large, no-
madic prey. Thestonetool technology
includes averylowproportion of bifa-
cial tools. With the exception of the
Taima-Taima locality in Venezuela,
dated to between 13,000 and 11,000
years ago, these sites usually range in
agebetweenapproximately11,000and
10,000yearsago.
A widevariety of regional projectile
point types primarily associated with
the hunting of guanaco, a wild cam-
elid, or other game appear between
11,000to10,000yearsago. Thesetypes
also occur in low frequencies and are
sometimes associated with different
unifacial tool types.
11,25,26
Theclearest
record occurs at numerous rockshel-
ters and caves in the highlands of
Peru, Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, and
occasionallyEcuador. Thesesites, dat-
ing to 10,500 years ago and later, are
typied by subtriangular, triangular,
andstemmedpointsakinto, but gener-
ally cruder than those of the subse-
quent early Holoceneperiod. Many of
the groups possessing these points
hunted game and gathered other re-
sources in specic habitats, such as
high-altitude deserts and grasslands
(puna), andprobablypracticedaloose
formof territorialitywithinthosehabi-
tats.
57
The descendants of these high-
altitude groups eventually domesti-
cated theAndean camelids.
Weknowmoreabout theabundant,
widelydistributedrockshelter andcave
sites that have been investigated in
the high Andes than we do about
regions further to the east in Brazil,
Uruguay, and Argentina. Sites in the
savanna and forested areas of central
and eastern Brazil primarily contain
generalized or all-purpose unifacial
stone tools; bifacial technologies are
rare.
911,30,35
Groups in this area were
adapted to a widevariety of oral and
faunal resources and environments.
They may haveoccupied a largeterri-
tory and moved little within it. Such
groups include the inhabitants of sev-
eral sites of the I taparica and Para-
naiba phases, dated between at least
11,500 and 10,000 years ago. Early
sites in Uruguay and Argentina are
associated primarily with projectile
point assemblages, including the sh-
tail point, and with both specialized
big-gamehuntingand generalized for-
aging. The same pattern exists at sev-
eral localitiesfarther southinthecold,
moist Patagonian grasslands of Chile
and Argentina. Thesesites include, for
example, Fells Cave, Mylodon Cave,
Palli Aike, and Cuevadel Medio.
As a whole, vagueness surrounds
the wide variety of bifacial and unifa-
cial industriesspreadacrosstheconti-
nent becauseso much of our informa-
tion is based on a few well-dated sites
and many poorly dated collections
from disturbed contexts or surface
exposures. Further, no sequence has
yet been established that shows the
source industry of these varied types.
Nevertheless, it is obvious from the
relative diversity of projectile point
types and unifacial industries that be-
tween 11,000 and 10,500 years ago a
generally heterogenous culture was
distributed over vast areas, and that,
probably within a few hundred years,
it began to develop into small regional
Figure 3. View of concentrations of akes and burned bones of mastodon and native horse at
the T bito site in the savanna plains north of Bogota , Colombia, dated to approximately 11,740
years ago.
The excellent
preservation of organic
material at Monte Verde
also reminds us of what
may be missing in poorly
preserved sites and how
narrow our
interpretations of the
past may be when they
are based almost
exclusively on patterns
observed in stone tool
and, occasionally, bone
assemblages.
ARTICLES Evolutionary Anthropology 211
cultures. The majority of these indus-
tries are made of local raw material.
Around or slightly before11,000years
ago, a period of widespread move-
ment of populations or diffusion of
ideas in parts of South America is
suggested by thewidespread distribu-
tion of the shtail point and its vari-
ants in the southern cone. As men-
tioned earlier, this point type is the
only one with nearly continent-wide
distribution currently known in the
late Quaternary archeological record.
This style and the other bifacial or
unifacial industries co-existing at the
same time, and often close together,
suggest that wearedealingnot merely
with functional variants, but probably
with the presence of distinct and par-
tiallyisolated populations.
No discussion of the continent is
completewithout consideration of hu-
man occupation of the coastlines. Al-
though the Atlantic coast is generally
devoid of early well-dated cultural de-
posits,
30,35,58
possibly because such
sites may be under water, the Pacic
coastlines of Peru and Chile contain
evidenceof occupations that maydate
toasearlyas10,500yearsago.
57,59,6066
Most of the coastal sites are shell
middens comprised of estuarine or
rocky intertidal mollusk species, or
both, as well as some intertidal and
estuarine sh fauna, varying quanti-
ties of sea mammal and terrestrial
mammal remains, and a few plant
species. Theartifact assemblages tend
to lack diversity, primarily consisting
of simple ake and core tools and, in
terminal Pleistocene and early Ho-
locene times, subtriangular, triangu-
lar, and leaf-shaped bifaces and har-
poonpoints. Ornamentsof shell, bone,
or stonearerare. Thereislittlearcheo-
logical evidence of specialized big-
gamehuntingalongthecoast. Rather,
thecoastal populationsareinterpreted
as having been generalized hunter-
gathererswho harvestedtheresources
of coastal habitats, interior pluvial
lakes, where present, and riparian
fauna and ora. These same coastal
populationseventuallylaidthefounda-
tionsfor theriseof earlyAndeancivili-
zation along the coastal plain of Peru
and northern Chile sometime in the
earlyto middleHoloceneperiod.
57,63
Coastal sequencesof thesameorder
of antiquity as sites located within the
interior of thecontinent areless forth-
coming, although a few earlier sites
are beginning to appear. The most
detailed archeological evidencecomes
fromthesiteof Huentelafquen on the
north-central Chileancoastline
60,64
and
theRingSiteinsouthernPeru,
63
where
relict Pleistocene land surfaces have
been discovered proximal to the sea.
These sites have been radiocarbons
dated to between 10,800and 9,700BP.
Marine fauna and unifacial lithic in-
dustries are present in the earliest
deposits. There also is good evidence
of theexchangeor direct procurement
of cultural items and food resources
fromtheinterior portionsof thecoast.
Recent work at two other Peruvian
south coastal sites, provides further
support for ahumanpresencethereby
at least 10,200 years ago.
65,66
Some
investigators believe that these sites
represent the rst migration of hu-
mans into the continent along the
Pacic coastline.
65
These sites, how-
ever, are not the earliest on the conti-
nent and thus represent only a late
Pleistocene human exploitation of se-
lected littoral and adjacent interior
environments. Because of the unusu-
ally steep declination of the continen-
tal shelf and high cliffs in southern
Peru and northern Chile, rising sea
Figure 4. View of wishbone-shaped foundation of hut at Monte Verde, Chile, dated to
approximately 12,500 years ago. The sand and gravel making up the foundation was imported
from a nearby stream bed. In and around the hut were found numerous fragments of animal
skins, bones of mastodon and paleo-llama, quids of various imported plant species (today
consumed by local native people for medicinal purposes), and stone tools. Vertical stubs of
burned and cut wood were embedded in the two arms of the foundation, suggesting the
remains of a pole frame.
Figure 5. Two fragments (top and center) of the bipointed and rhomboidal points made of
andesite and basalt found at Monte Verde. The top fragment was recovered near the hut; the
middle fragment was associated with the nearby remains of a long tent-like structure. The
bottomspecimen is slate imported fromthe coast about 60 kmeast of Monte Verde. The piece
has been pecked and ground into a perforating-type tool.
212 Evolutionary Anthropology ARTICLES
levels in latePleistocenetimes did not
submergesites. Moreearlycoastal sites
will surely be found in this region in
thefuture.
Between10,000and7,000yearsago,
human diets along the Pacic coastal
plainandinmanyother partsof South
America changed dramatically.
3133,57
Wild plant and animal foods previ-
ouslyavailablebut not muchexploited
suddenlybecameimportant andsome-
times dominant elements of local di-
ets. Other changes in human behavior
also occurred, marked by the appear-
anceof newtechnologiessuchasseed-
grinding stones, composite shhooks,
harpoon points, more formal bifaces,
and basketry. There were larger and
more stable settlements and higher
regional population densities, espe-
cially in the major river valleys de-
scendingtheAndean mountainstothe
east and west; increased reliance on
food storage; theappearanceof broad
exchange networks; the emergence of
complex social differentiation, indi-
cated by mortuary patterns and house
structures; and, in some areas, the
development of horticulture.
31,32,57
Per-
haps, in some closely circumscribed
andhighlyproductivehabitatssuch as
those on the Peruvian and Chilean
coastal plains, in some river basins in
theAndeanhighlands, andinthetropi-
cal lowlands east of the Andes, the
pressure of human numbers was al-
readystimulatingchangesinthisdirec-
tion between 11,000 and 9,000 years
ago as part of the competition for
control of, or access to, these favored
habitats. The late Pleistocene period
was probably characterized by very
lowpopulation densitiesin most habi-
tats. However, when groups encoun-
tered favored habitats they may have
opted to stay in close contact rather
thantomigratelongdistance, not only
for the purpose of accessing key re-
sources but for biological reproduc-
tion. I n this regard, I suspect that
mating and loose territorial sson-
fusion wereas important as rawstone
material and certain food types. This
same process may have stimulated
social aggregation on a local level and
reinforced group differentiation, iden-
tity, and possibly even occasional ri-
valry. This situation was probably in-
tensied in the early and middle
Holocene period, especially in more
productiveenvironmentssuchasopen
forests, parklands, and large forming
deltas.
Although the preceeding congura-
tions present environmental, subsis-
tence, and technological speculation
about the varied early archeological
record of South America, that record
is still too vague and too spotty to
depict underlying units and rates of
culture change. At this time it is pos-
sible to identify a sequential process
that can accomodate and specify the
different subsistence and technologi-
cal patterns that were present by at
least 11,500 to 10,500 years ago, each
of which is probably associated with
different dispersing or colonizing
populations. Moreover, not a single
sitein South America suggests a clear
chronological trend between theseen-
vironmental, technological, andsubsis-
tence changes. The present evidence
does suggest, however, that since at
least 11,000 years ago, these changes
havenot been unidirectional in South
America. Furthermore, the time lag
between theappearanceof peopleand
the later beginnings of social and cul-
tural complexity in parts of South
America was probably on theorder of
4,000 to 7,000 years in some areas, if
wepresumethepresenceof peopleno
earlier than 15,000 to 18,000 years
ago. From the perspective of cultural
evolution, this makes South America
unique, given that other continents
wereoccupiedbyhumansmanymille-
nia prior to the earliest development
of social and cultural complexity. On
theother hand, if peoplewereinSouth
Americabefore20,000years ago, then
the South American record falls into
an evolutionary line of development
similar to that throughout the rest of
the world, whereby complexity oc-
curred many thousands of years after
the initial arrival of Homo sapiens
sapiens. I believe that when a more
completearcheological recordisavail-
able, thelatter scenario will prevail.
GENERAL TRENDS IN HUMAN
OSTEOLOGY AND GENETICS
The trends I have described in the
archeological record haveobvious im-
plications for patterns of gene ow
and the type of biological Homo sapi-
ens sapiens that colonized South
America.
6770
Direct evidence regard-
ing the physical and genetic make-up
of the rst people entering the conti-
nent is missing.
67
I n fact, not a single
reliable human skeleton from the late
Pleistocene age (i.e., before 10,000
yearsago) hasbeenexcavated, making
South America the only continent on
the planet where we know of an early
human presence almost exclusively
through traces of artifacts and not
skeletal remains. The earliest known
skeletal evidence is from the sites of
LasVegasinsouthwest Ecuador,
61
Lau-
ricocha and Paijan in northern
Peru,
10,11,53
La Moderna in Argen-
tina,
10,11,34
Lapa Vermelha I V in Bra-
zil,
68
and a handful of other localities,
all dating to between approximately
10,000 and 8,500 years ago. Thereare
claims of earlier skeletal remains, but
the their stratigraphic contexts or ra-
diocarbon datesarehighlysuspect.
I n studying the cranial morphology
of skeletons from these and other lo-
calities datingto theearly and middle
Archaic period (10,0006,000 years
ago), some physical anthropologists
believethat two distinct human popu-
lations, one Mongoloid and the other
possiblynon-Mongoloid, existedinlate
Pleistocene times,
6871
and that the
latter arrived rst.
68
They attribute
this differenceto at least two different
wavesof humanmigrationrather than
to theentryof asinglepopulation that
split into two different directions and
adapted to distinct habitats and di-
etary customs. At present, the sample
of humanskeletal material istooincom-
plete to determine whether these differ-
ences are related to sampling biases,
Around or slightly before
11,000 years ago, a
period of widespread
movement of
populations or diffusion
of ideas in parts of South
America is suggested by
the widespread
distribution of the shtail
point and its variants in
the southern cone.
ARTICLES Evolutionary Anthropology 213
methodological biases, migrations, local
adaptations, or gene-owbarriers.
72
So far, the genetic evidence has not
been very helpful in shedding new
light on this and other problems,
though it has provided new insights
intothegenetic diversityof contempo-
raryindigenous South Americans.
7383
Unlikephysical anthropologistsstudy-
ingcranial morphologyandother skel-
etal traits, geneticists vary in their
opinions of the meaning of genetic
diversity. For instance, some studies
favor an entry before 15,000 years
ago.
7577,81
These studies are not at
odds with the archeological evidence
supportinganentrydatebefore11,000
years ago. Others admit to consider-
able diversity in the genetic evidence
but accomodate their ndings to the
Clovis model of late entry.
70
I t is not
knownwhether diversityoccurredrap-
idly in intermixed populations, slowly
in longstanding small populations, or
slowly in other populations that were
undergoing changes in size but that
had not had enough time together to
recreate diversity through mutations.
I t is also possible that small, isolated
populations lost some genetic diver-
sity, further complicating our under-
standing of these records. Lastly, to
accomodate the biological diversity
identied in both the skeletal and ge-
netic records, several physical anthro-
pologists and geneticists have advo-
catedan earlyentrydateasfar back as
20,000 to 40,000 years ago. Some lin-
guists also have proposed great time
depth to explain language diversity.
84
Calibration of these records must de-
pend, however, on archeological dates
taken fromreliablecontexts.
I n summary, I believe that the cur-
rent sample size of human skeletal
material in South Americaistoo small
and that the patterning observed in
the remains of the Archaic period is
too late in time to extrapolate back to
the late Pleistocene period. Until we
understand the mortuary practices of
therst Americansandrecover alarger
sample of earlier human skeletons, I
am reluctant to believe that the cur-
rent biological evidence reliably re-
ects historic events in the late Pleis-
tocene. This is not to say that this
evidence has not helped our under-
standingof thepeoplingof theAmeri-
cas. On the contrary, this information
has established the probability of two
distinct human populations in late
Pleistocene times and has suggested
different modelsof human dispersion.
CONCLUSION
Given the current archeological re-
cord, I believe that the peopling of
South America was in someways cul-
turallyand sociallydifferent fromthat
in North America. Although early
populations in both continents were
surely derived from the same Asian
biological stock, therst peopleenter-
ing South America were somewhat
different behaviorally and culturally
due to previous multiple generations
of technological and organizational
adaptationsinNorthAmericaandCen-
tral America. I n this regard, I see the
earlycultural diversityandcomplexity
in South America as beingrelated not
just to regional isolationismbut to the
degree and history of transgenera-
tional contactsbetweendifferent popu-
lations and various local types of tech-
nological, economic, andsocial practices.
In order to account for theearlytechno-
logical continuity such as that of Clovis
and subsequent Clovis derivatives such
as Folsom, Dalton, and Cumberland,
which has been documented in the
North American archeological record,
I believe that in North America there
was more initial contact across broad
regions and less local-level adaptation
thantherewasinSouthAmerica. Such
contact would partially explain the
rapid, widespread dispersion of the
Clovis tradition, probably across an
extant population, in North America.
Early local adaptations, less mobility,
new strategies for dealing with sea-
sonal and unpredictable environmen-
tal variations, and probably circum-
scribed territories would also help to
explain the widespread diversity of
stone tool technologies and other cul-
tural traitsin South America.
The most plausible scenario to ex-
plain the current archeological evi-
dence, regardless of an early or late
entry date, is a founding migration of
people moving rapidly from North
America to South America along the
Pacic coastline sometime shortly be-
fore (ca. 14,00012,000 b.p.) the inven-
tion and spread of the Clovis culture.
Oncethepre-Clovis population reached
South America, it probably dispersed
quickly into several widely spaced and
isolated regional groups. Each regional
group was initially highly mobilewithin
certain broadenvironmental zones(e.g.,
savanna plains, patchy woodlands) and
was large enough in size to biologically
sustainitself. Althoughit isprobablethat
a second wave of immigrants bearing a
Clovis-like culture reached the conti-
nent sometimearound or after 11,000
b.p., South America apparently did
not experience the continuous ow of
immigrants presumed for North
America. This pattern would explain
theearly cultural and biological diver-
sity identied across South America,
as well as thepresenceof a few North
American technological traits. Human
dispersion across South America was
probably greatly facilitated by thenu-
merous east to west oriented rivers on
both anks of the Andes, especially
between 14,000and 12,500b.p., when
deglaciation had occurred in most ar-
eas and when many river valleys had
becomestabilized. Thesevalleyswould
have provided an adundant and di-
verse resource base and an ease of
movement betweenthecoast andhigh-
lands and into the eastern lowlands,
especially in areas such as southern
Ecuador (present-dayGuayaquil River
basin) and northern Peru, where the
Andean mountains are relatively low
andnarrow. FromanAtlanticor Carib-
bean perspective, the Orinoco River
systemwas important as an avenueinto
theheartlandof theAmazonianbasin.
To extend the contrast between the
two continents even further, the cul-
tural diversity and broad-spectrum
economies documented across South
America by 11,000 BP did not take
. . . several physical
anthropologists and
geneticists have
advocated an early
entry date as far back as
20,000 to 40,000 years
ago. Some linguists also
have proposed great
time depth to explain
language diversity.
214 Evolutionary Anthropology ARTICLES
place in North America until approxi-
mately 10,000 BP, or roughly a thou-
sand years later. The rapid, efficient
adaptation of regional populations to
diverseenvironmentsmaypartiallyex-
plain whysomeformsof earlyciviliza-
tion emerged earlier in parts of South
America. For instance, cultigens may
have appeared as early as 10,000 to
8,000 BP, while pottery production is
established by at least 6,000 BP.
85
Monumental architecture existed in
parts of Peru by 5,000 BP.
18,3133
What
triggered these changes is not well
understood. I suspect that much of the
answer lies in afurther understanding
of advanced hunter-gatherer societies
intensifying broad-spectrum diets in
lush, circumscribedareassuch aswet-
lands along the coasts of Colombia,
Ecuador, and Peru, ecotones alongthe
westernandeasternanksof theAndes
from Colombia to northern hile and
Argentina, and conuences of large
river systems in the eastern lowlands
fromVenezuela to Paraguay and Uru-
guay.
I t is not known when and wherethe
rst humans migrated to the Ameri-
cas. Giventhepresenceof validarcheo-
logical sites dated to between 12,500
and 11,000 years ago, it is likely that
people arrived in the Southern Hemi-
sphere no later than 15,000 to 14,000
years ago. Further, we are a long way
from being able to specify all of the
conditions under which theserst hu-
man adaptations occurred in the
Southern Hemisphere. As a starting
point, we must recognize that the key
issue is not rapid, blitzkreig movement
but efficient adaptationof technological,
socioeconomic, and ideational practices
over several generationswithin different
local andregional populations. Wemust
also develop research questions and
strategies to studythesepractices on a
comparative local and hemispherical
basis that may lead us to signicant
insightsintotheplasticityof latePleis-
tocenehumanpopulations. Withmore
research, we should see that these
populations were far more subcultur-
ally and temporally variable than has
previously been envisioned. From an
archeological perspective, thisvariabil-
ityshouldbereectedasgradationsin
changing populations types, artifact
types, and site features. These grada-
tions in the archeological complexes
should correlate with the direction,
rate, and timing of late Pleistocene
environmental changeandrelatedcul-
tural changes, not only across South
America but throughout the Western
Hemisphere and Pacic Rim in gen-
eral. However, identifying these pro-
cesses in the archeological record is
not easy, particularly in marginally
productiveareassuchasthehighpuna
grasslandsof theAndes, wherehuman
entry may have uctuated over a long
period in accordance with changing
climatic patterns. I n more productive
areas, such as the temperate climates
of southernChilewheretheMonteVerde
siteislocatedandof theforestedenviron-
mentsof theAmazon Basin, peoplemay
haveenteredandthencolonizedwithina
veryshort periodof time. What weneed
most nowarespecicresearchquestions
and eld strategies to studythesegrada-
tionsandwhat theytell usabout therst
peoplingof theAmericas.
REFERENCES
1Bird J . 1969. A comparison of south Chilean
andEcuadoreanshtailpoints. Kroeber Anthro-
pol Soc Papers4:5271.
2Lynch TF. 1983. The Paleo-I ndians. I n: J en-
nings J , editor. Ancient South Americans. New
York: W.H. Freeman. p 87137.
3Lynch TF. 1990. Glacial-age man in South
America: Acritical review. AmAntiquity55:1236.
4Meltzer D. 1991. On paradigms and para-
digmbias in controversiesover human antiquity
in America. I n: Dillehay TD, Meltzer DJ , editors.
TheFirst Americans: Search andresearch, Bacon
Raton: CRC Press. p 1349.
5Fagan B. 1987. Thegreat journey: Thepeopling
of ancient America. London: ThamesandHudson.
6Dillehay TD. 1997. Monte Verde: A Late Pleis-
tocenesettlement inChile, vol. 2: Thearchaeological
context. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution
Press.
7Kreiger A. 1964. Early man in the New World.
I n J ennings J D, Norbeck E, editors. Prehistoric
man in the New World. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. p 2881.
8Bryan A. 1986. Paleoamerican prehistory as
seen from South America. I n: Bryan A, editor.
New evidencefor thePleistocenepeopling of the
Americas. Orono, ME: Center for the Study of
EarlyMan. p 114.
9Bryan A. 1973. Paleoenvironments and cultural
diversity in Late Pleistocene South America. Q
Res3:237256.
10Ardila Calderon G, Politis G. 1989. Nuevos
datos para un viejo problema: I nvestigacion y
discussion en torno del poblamiento de America
del Sur. Bol Museo Oro (Bogota) 23:345.
11DillehayTD, ArdilaGC, Politis G, Beltrao MC.
1992. Earliest hunters and gatherers of South
America. J World Prehist 6:145204.
12Bonnichsen R, Turnmire K, editors. 1991.
Clovis: origins and adaptations. Corvallis: The
Center for theStudyof theFirst Americans.
13Roosevelt A, Lima da Costa M, Machado C,
MichabM, Mercier N, ValldasH, FeathersJ , Barnett
W, Imazio da Silveira M, Henderson A, Sliva J ,
Chernoff B, ReeseD, Holman J A, Toth N, Schick K.
1996. PaleoindiancavedwellersintheAmazon: The
peoplingof theAmericas. Science272:373384.
14Meltzer D, Grayson D, Ardila G, Barker A,
Dincauze D, Haynes CV, Mena F, Nunez L, Stan-
ford D. 1997. On the pleistocene antiquity of
MonteVerde, Chile. AmAntiquity62:659663.
15Meltzer D. 1997. Monte Verde and the Pleis-
tocene peopling of the Americas. Science 276:754
755.
16Adovasio J , Pedler DR. 1997. MonteVerdeand
the Antiquity of Humankind in the Americas.
Antiquity71:573580.
17LynchT. 1991. PaleoindiansinSouthAmerica:
A discrete and identiable cultural stage? I n:
Bonnichsen R, Turnmire K, editors. Clovis: ori-
gins and adaptations. Corvallis: Center for the
Studyof theFirst Americans. p 255259.
18Moseley ME. 1992. The I nca and their ances-
tors. London: Thamesand Hudson.
19Aldenderfer M. 1989. Archaic period in the
south-central Andes. J World Prehist 3:117158.
20DillehayT, Meltzer DJ , editors. 1991. TheFirst
Americans: Search and research. Boca Raton:
CRC Press.
21Martin PS. 1973. The discovery of America.
Science179:969974.
22Haynes CV. 1969. The earliest Americans.
Science166:709715.
23Kelly RL, Todd LC. 1988. Coming into the
country: EarlyPaleoindian huntingand mobility.
AmAntiquity53:231244.
24Meltzer D. 1989. Was stoneexchanged among
Eastern North American Paleoindians? I n: Ellis
CJ , Lothrop J , editors. Eastern Paleondian lithic
resourceuse. Boulder: WestviewPress. p1189.
25LynchTF. 1980. GuitarreroCave: Earlymanin
theAndes. NewYork: Academic Press.
26Rick J . 1988. The character and context of
highland preceramic society. I n: KeatingeR, edi-
tor. 1988. Prehistoric Peru. NewYork: Cambridge
UniversityPress. p 340.
27Prous A. 1993. Santana do Riacho. Tomo I I .
ArquivosMuseu HistoriaNat 1314:3440.
28Prous A. 1991. Fouilles de LAbri du Boquete.
MinasGerais, Bresil. J Soc Am77:77109.
29Prous A. 1992. Arqueologia Brasiliera. Bra-
zilia: Editorial UNB.
30Kipnis R. 1998. Early hunter-gatherers in the
Americas: Perspectivesfromcentral Brazil. Antiq-
uity72:1122.
31Quilter J . 1991. Latepreceramic Peru. J World
Prehist 387435.
32Pearsall D. 1995. Domestication and agricul-
ture in the New World tropics. I n: Price D,
Gebauer B, editors. Last hunters-rst farmers.
Sante Fe: School of American Research. p 157
192.
33Dillehay TD, Rossen J , Netherly PJ . 1997. The
Nanchoc tradition: The beginnings of Andean
civilization. AmSci 85:4655.
34PolitisG. 1991. Fishtail projectilepointsin the
southern coneof South America: An overview. I n:
Bonnichsen R, Turnmire K, editors. Colvis: ori-
gins and adaptations. Corvallis, OR: Center for
theStudyof theFirst Americansp 287302.
35Schmitz P. 1987. Prehistorichuntersandgath-
erersof Brazil. J World Prehist 1:126161.
36Ledru MP, Braga PI S, Soubies F, Fournier M,
Martin L, Suguio K, Turcq B. 1996. The last
50,000 years in the neotropics (southern Brazil):
Evolutionof vegetationandclimate. Palaeogeogr,
Palaeoclimatol, Palaeoecol 123:239357.
37Heusser C. 1990. I ce-age vegetation and cli-
mateof subtropical Chile. Palaeogeogr, Palaeocli-
matol, Palaeoecol 80:107127.
38LedruMP. 1993. Latequaternaryenvironmen-
tal andclimaticchangesincentral Brazil. Quater-
naryRes39:9098.
ARTICLES Evolutionary Anthropology 215
39Heusser L, Shackleton NJ . 1994. Tropical cli-
matic variation on thePacic slopes of theEcua-
dorian Andes based on a 25,000-year pollen re-
cord from deep-sea sediment core tri 163-31b
QuaternaryRes42:222225.
40Ashworth A, Hoganson J W. 1993. The magni-
tude and rapidity of the climate change marking
theend of thePleistocenein themid-latitudes of
South America. Palaeogeogr, Palaeoclimatol, Pal-
aeoecol 101:263270.
41Rull V. 1996. Late pleistocene and holocene
climatesof Venezuela. QuaternaryI nt 31:8594.
42Prieto AR. 1996. LateQuaternaryvegetational
and climatic changes in the Pampa grassland of
Argentina. QuaternaryRes45:7388.
43Latrubesse EM, Rambonell C. 1994. A cli-
matic model for southwestern Amazonia in late
glacial times. QuaternaryI nt 21:163169.
44Gruhn R. 1988. Linguistic evidencein support
of thecoastal routeof earliest entry into theNew
World. AmAntiquity56:342352.
45Dillehay TD. 1998. Early rainforest archeol-
ogy in southwestern South America: Research
context, design, and data at Monte Verde. I n:
PurdyB, editor. Wet sitearcheology. Caldwell, NJ :
CRC Press. p 177206.
46Guidon N, Pessis AM, Parenti P, Fontugue M,
Guerin G. 1996. Pedra Fuarda, Brazil: Reply to
Meltzer, Adovasio, and Dillehay. Antiquity 70:408
421.
47Meltzer D, AdovasioJ , DillehayTD. 1994. Ona
pleistocene human occupation at Pedra Furada,
Brazil. Antiquity68:695714.
48Oschenius C, Gruhn R, editors. 1979. Taima-
Taima: A LatePleistocenePaleo-I ndian kill sitein
Northwestern South America. Coro, Venezuela.
49ProusA. 1992. ArqueologiaBrasiliera. Brasilia:
EditoriaUNB.
50Prous A. 1986. Os mais antigos vestigios ar-
queologicos no Brasil Central (Estados deMinas
Gerais, Goias eBahia). I n: Bryan AL, editor. New
evidencefor thePleistocenepeoplingof theAmeri-
cas. Orono, ME: Center for the Study of Early
Man. p 173181.
51MassoneM. 1996. Hombretemprano y paleo-
ambienteen laregion deMagallanes: Evaluacion
criticayperspectiva. AnnInst Patagonia24:8298.
52Nunez AL. 1992. Tagua-Tagua: Un sitio de
matanzaen el centro deChile. Paper presentedat
theFirst WorldConferenceon MongoloidDisper-
sion. Toyko: TheUniversityof Toyko.
53Chauchat C. 1975. ThePaijancomplex, Pampa
deCupisnique, Peru. NawpaPacha17:143146.
54Gnecco C, Mora S. 1997. Late pleistocene/early
holocene tropical forest occupations at San Isidro
andPenaRoja, Colombia. Antiquity21:683690.
55Flegenheimer N. 1987. Recent research at
localities Cerro La China y Cerro El Sombrero,
Argentina. Curr ResPleistocene4:148149.
56Mayer-Oakes W. 1986. Early man projectile
points and lithic technology in the Ecuadorian
highlands. I n: Bryan AL, editor. Newevidencefor
thePleistocenepeoplingof theAmericas. Orono,
ME: Center for the Study of Early Man. p 133
156.
57Moseley MJ . 1975. Themaritimefoundations of
Andeanciviliztion. MenloPark: CummingsPress.
58Andrade TC. 1997. The shellmound-builders:
Emergent complexity along the south/southeast
coast of Brazil. Paper presented at theSoc Amer.
59Richardson J . 1981. Modeling the develop-
ment of sedentary maritime economies on the
coast of Peru: A preliminary statement. Ann
CarnegieMuseum50:139150.
60Llagostera M. 1979. 9,700 years of maritime
subsistence on the Pacic coast: An analysis by
means of bioindicators in thenorth of Chile. Am
Antiquity44:309324.
61Stothert K. 1985. The preceramic Las Vegas
cultureof coastal Ecuador. AmAntiquity 50:613
637.
62Munoz I . 1982. Las sociedades costeras en el
litoral de Arica y su vinculaciones con la costa
Peruana. Chungara9:124151.
63Sandweiss DH, Richardson J B I I I , Reitz EJ ,
Hsu J T, Feldman RA. 1989. Earlymaritimeadap-
tations in the Andes: Preliminary studies at the
Ring site, Peru. I n: Rice D, Stanish C, Scarr P,
editors. Ecology, settlement, and history in the
Osmore Drainage, Peru, vol. 545. Oxford: BAR
I nternational Series. p 3584.
64Llagostera A. 1979. Ocupacion Humana en la
Coasta Norte de Chile Asociada a Peces Local-
Extintos y a Litos Geometricos: 9,680 160 a.c.
Actas del VI I Congreso de Arqueologia de Chile.
Santiago: Editorial Kultrun. p 345360.
65Sandweiss D, McI nnis H, Burger R, Cano A,
Ojeda B, Paredes R, Sandweiss C, Glascock MD.
1998. Quebrada J aguay: Early South American
maritimeadaptations. Science281:18301832.
66Keefer DK, deFrance SD, Moseley ME, Rich-
ardson J B, Satterlee DR, Day-Lewis A. 1998. Early
maritimeeconomyandEl Nino eventsat Quebrada
Tacahuay, Peru. Science281:18331835.
67Dillehay TD. 1997. Dondeestan los restos oseos
humanos del periodo Pleistocenico tardio? Prob-
lemas y persectivas en la busqueda delos primeros
americanos. Bol Arqueol PUCP (Lima). 1:5564.
68Neves WA, Pucciarelli HM, Meyer D. 1993.
The contribution of the morphology of early
South and North American skeletal remains to
the understanding of the peopling of the Ameri-
cas. AmJ PhysAnthropol 16:150151.
69Lahr MM. 1995. The evolution of modern
human diversity: A study of cranial variation.
England: CambridgeUniversityPress.
70Steele DG, Powell J F. 1998. Historical review
of the skeletal evidence for the peopling of the
Americas. Paper presentedat theSocietyof Ameri-
can Archaeology.
71Munford D, Zanini ADC, Neves WA. 1995.
Human cranial variations in South America: I m-
plications for the settlement of the New World.
Brazilian J Genet 18:673688.
72SteeleDG, Powell J F. 1995. Peoplingof theAmeri-
cas: Paleobiological evidence. HumBiol 64:303336.
73BelichMP, Madrigal J A, HildebrandWH, Zem-
mour J , Williams RC, Lux R, Petzi-Erier ML,
Parham P. 1992. Unusual HLA-B alleles in two
tribesof Brazilian I ndians. Nature357:326328.
74Watkins DI , McAdam SN, Liu X, Strang CR,
Milford EL, Levine CG, Garber TL, Dogon AL,
LordCI , GhimSH, TroupGM, HughesAL, Letvin
NL. 1992. New recombinant HLA-B alleles in a
tribe of South America Amerindians indicate
rapid evolution of MHC class I loci. Science
357:329333.
75Salzano F. 1995. DNA, proteins and human
diversity. Brazil J Genet 18:645650.
76Bianchi NO, Bailliet G, Bravi GM. 1995. Peo-
pling of the Americas as inferred through the
analysis of mitochondrial DNA. Brazil J Genet
18:661668.
77Torroni A, Schurr TG, Cabell MF, Brown MI ,
Neel J V, Larsen M, Smith DG, Vullo CM, Wallace
C. 1992. Asian affinities and continental radia-
tions of the four founding Native America mtD-
NAs. AmJ HumGenet 53:563590.
78Merriweather DA, Rothhammer F, Ferrell RE.
1994. Genetic variation in the New World: An-
cient teeth, bone, and tissues as sources of DNA.
Experientia50:592601.
79PenaSDJ . 1996. Thehuman genomediversity
project and thepeoplingof theAmericas. Brazil J
Genet 18:641643.
80SzathmaryEJ . 1993. mtDNA andthepeopling
of theAmericas. AmJ HumGenet 53:793799.
81Cann RL. 1994. mtDNA and Native Ameri-
cans: A southern perspective. Am J Hum Genet
55:711.
82. Rothhammer F, Silva C, Callegari-J acques
SM, Llop E, Salzano FM. 1997. Gradients of HLA
diversity in South American I ndians. Ann Hum
Biol 24:197208.
83. Rothhammer F, Silva C. 1992. Gene geogra-
phy of South America: Testingmodels of popula-
tion displacement based on archeological evi-
dence. Amer J PhyAnthropo 89:441446.
84Nichols J . 1995. Linguistic diversity and the
peoplingof theAmericas. Berkeley: University of
CaliforniaPress.
85Oyuela-Caycedo A. 1995. Rocks versus clay:
Pottery technology in San J acinto-1, Colombia.
I n: Barnett W, Hoopes J , editors. Early pottery in
the New World. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian
I nstitution Press. p 133144.

1999 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

216 Evolutionary Anthropology ARTICLES